Member Info for Jasper13

Sorry LSE blocks link.

Try - you’ll see link here.

https://x.com/jasper13_01/status/2055965562774196516?s=46&t=ujXM_Bl2CwkWFoCeBiJtWQ

if you want got move away from the constant and incessant vitriolic posts by a select number on here intent on causing nothing but disruption then you should consider this.

*************+aps7dv1nm802njg0

lse does nothing to ban them, people on here keep feeding them. your choice.

Seabright … an individual of voice and substantial respect. And then chirps up Tit.

About sums it up. For anyone wanting a lesson in PRD click on Seabright posts. Great to see you post again.

For balanced views content and discussion come off here and see my X post, You will be welcomed with open arms.

Lost in the melee of posts today. I know it’ll annoy a few but so be it.

https://gray-antonetta-3.tiiny.site/

Let’s see who bites first. 😉

For the sake of the genuine invested shareholders here, I am a retail investor. Very long term holder of PRD. I have no association with the company nor their PR firm nor their brokers.

I provide all my research free of charge and continue to believe in the company, management and its assets. I have not taken part in the placing nor was I aware of its existence. Posters on here can smear my character and narrative as much as they like, I am aware from others that I am being targeted today with vile comments. Carry on they are meaningless and your agenda is clear to see.

What Flagstaff decided to do with my research note was their business and they confirmed with me first hand was I amiable for it to be sent out. I have no agenda as some maybe pointing out, other than the success of the business and monetisation of its assets which are grossly undervalued by the London market.

Midas..yes I have.

RustyRat1970...very good post and observations. Someone who reads between the lines and puts together a very sensible and pragmatic view point.

Https://gray-antonetta-3.tiiny.site

Thanks Lancygeo

Today could be interesting as it appears more people are taking an interest in matters. Market is still asleep and market makers are not tempting many sellers.

For those that missed it - https://black-maribeth-67.tiiny.site/

Full detailed analysis and thesis on a full divestment of the company. I have spoken to a few long term shareholders last few days who share the same view. It maybe wrong but something is going on behind the scenes and we’ve been given enough snippets from PG, and I think his endorsement of the research note via Flagstaff speaks volumes.

A full acquisition of PRD plc by a major who has taken a portfolio view maybe feasible. Morocco to be divested to a Gulf NOC at a profit, Trinidad for the Guyana-on-trend upside, Ireland for free as a European gas security option — is not just plausible,it may be the cleanest possible transaction structure.

It requires only one thing: a buyer who sees the whole board rather than individual pieces. BP sees the whole board. ExxonMobil now has the Trinidad position to see it. Equinor has the Corrib relationship to see it. TotalEnergies has the Morocco relationships to see it.

Any one of them could acquire PRD plc outright, take a $200M+ profit on day one by selling Morocco to ADNOC, retain Trinidad as a growing producing business adjacent to the Guyana play, and hold Ireland as a virtually free option on a European gas security discovery.

At £26M market cap, this is not a difficult investment decision for any of them. It is a question of who moves first.

Griffiths said in February: "We seek to prioritise those projects that can generate the highest near-term return for shareholders whilst maintaining flexibility to respond to new drilling results."

"Flexibility." He has built a company that is flexible enough to be sold whole, or sold in parts, or developed independently. Every option is open. Every option has been kept open deliberately.

The only thing that remains to be seen is whether Paul Griffiths is selling the pieces or selling the board.

Given everything — the Flagstaff distribution, the non-retraction, the 50-day revenue silence, the 16-month drilling gap, the HOA terms publicly anchored, the buyer who has seen the ITR, the clock ticking toward November 5th Extension deadline — the answer to that question is coming very soon.

Market still asleep.

✅ - ADNOC board meeting today

✅ - ONHYM ratification by King (becomes officially a public company)

✅ - Endorsed research note

✅ - Delayed operational updates - valid reasons as corporate transaction is taking precedence?

Rambo/Madman-Rob/KeithOz

Great posts. Bear with me here as I think Rambo has something.

We are well overdue Trinidad oil sales updates and last RNS 23rd March stated - "The current strengthening of oil price on the global markets is expected to see the February sales oil price for March increase by 25 to 35%, if current pricing trends persist in the short term." We know it has.

Research note was sent out by Flagstaff to their clients, PG was sent a copy and nothing was retracted or changed = Endorsement in my opinion.

Was this PG's subtle way of telling shareholders that it was "on the money" and that a FULL sale of Guercif licence is underway and NDA's are binding any further comms at present. Throw in ONHYM going public and final ratifications required by the King, maybe documentation is awaiting signature?

Add into the mix Trinidad? Has a suitor also shown interest in PRD's licences, especially the up and coming Snowcap drill. Would this explain the silence on oil sales numbers?

Something is brewing in the background, there are too many clues and dots now joined up. PG comments - "sooner than people expect" keeps ringing bells.

I have a feeling we will know the final outcome very soon.

Madman-Rob

Thanks for the repost. I’ve added more to the document for those interested in further research, discussion and thoughts.

https://black-maribeth-67.tiiny.site/

This is the most important question and the one that needs careful thought.

If a transaction is live, if Heads of Terms are being negotiated, if a CDA is in force with a counterparty, then PG endorsing a document that speculates accurately about the deal structure, the counterparty type, the valuation, and the timeline could potentially constitute selective disclosure of price-sensitive information, even if the underlying document contains only public sources.

The endorsement itself, not the document, is the new piece of information. The market now knows that PG has read a document that says a transaction is imminent and muted values stated, and he has not corrected it. That is information.

▪️ If there is no live transaction, the endorsement is a strategic communications move to build market narrative ahead of a deal announcement, entirely legitimate

▪️ If there is a live transaction, the endorsement is more complicated and PG and Flagstaff will have thought carefully about where the line is

Practically — what does this mean for timing?

An endorsement of a document that concludes "the clock isn't just ticking, it may have already struck", combined with the 90-day rig lead time analysis pointing to a decision being made right now is the strongest possible signal short of an actual RNS that something is imminent.

CEOs of listed companies do not endorse M&A theses about their own company for fun. They endorse them when the thesis is right, when the timing is right, and when they want the market to be prepared for what is coming.

Paul Griffiths receiving a research document built entirely from public sources — RNS announcements, his own interviews, company presentations — and choosing to endorse it rather than refute it, correct it, or ask for it to be withdrawn is itself a disclosure event of sorts.

He had three options when Flagstaff sent it to him:

▪️ Option A — Ignore it

▪️ Option B — Ask Flagstaff to retract or correct it

▪️ Option C — Endorse it

He chose Option C. That is not a casual decision for a CEO of an LSE-listed company. His legal team, his Nominated Adviser and his PR firm will all be aware that an endorsement of detailed M&A speculation — even from a public sources document — carries weight.

What the endorsement tells us:

▪️ The core thesis is directionally correct. Griffiths would not endorse a document that materially misrepresents the strategic direction of his company. If the full divestment thesis were wrong — if the plan were genuinely a standalone GSA with Afriquia — he would have said so, or asked Flagstaff to clarify. His silence on the divestment thesis and active endorsement of the document means he is comfortable with the narrative it constructs.

▪️ The valuation framing is acceptable to him. The document contains specific valuation ranges. Endorsing the document without correcting those figures is as close as a listed company CEO can get to saying "these numbers are in the right ballpark" without triggering formal disclosure obligations.

▪️ The Gorilla Dust narrative has not been denied. The document explicitly describes a concurrent GSA / full sale strategy with the same buyer. If that framing were wrong, an endorsement would be reputationally damaging to Griffiths personally — he would not endorse something that mischaracterises his strategy. The fact he has endorsed it suggests the dual-track description is accurate.

▪️ The ADNOC / Gulf NOC framing has not been corrected. The document names ADNOC as the primary candidate and does not rule out BP. Endorsing the document without correcting the counterparty speculation is meaningful. It does not confirm ADNOC specifically — but it does suggest the "Gulf NOC / major" framing is not wrong.

The Flagstaff angle matters too. Flagstaff Communications is a professional financial PR firm. They do not forward speculative retail investor documents to their entire client database and to the CEO without considering the implications carefully. The fact that they:

▪️ Read the document

▪️ Considered it credible enough to distribute

▪️ Sent it to Griffiths specifically

▪️ And he endorsed it

...suggests the document landed with the credibility of institutional-grade research rather than forum speculation. Flagstaff will have understood that distributing CEO-endorsed M&A research to their database creates a market narrative. That is their job — and they chose to do it.

The note sent by Flagstaff is word for word per the research note - no changes whatsoever. ✅

PG was sent a copy and is ok with it ✅

Tim at Flagstaff asked if he could send my research note. I obliged and he’s also sent it to the company.

This isn't a delay because it's incomplete.

Per the February 25th RNS, Scorpion Geoscience's Guercif ITR has been finished — it was shared with the licence partner (ONHYM) first as contractually required, and is described as "supporting progress towards completing a transaction."

That was 10+ weeks ago. Still nothing published publicly.

Compare that to the Trinidad ITR — published within days of completion.

▪️ There are only two credible explanations

▪️ Explanation A — it shows a material resource uplift above the stated 441 BCF and Griffiths is holding it back until HoT is signed. Publishing it now gifts the buyer a reason to stall while PRD's price expectations inflate. You hold it, complete the deal, then release it simultaneously. Shareholders get the uplift baked into the deal price rather than negotiated against it.

▪️ Explanation B — it contains something negative. But this is inconsistent with the publicly stated HoT terms in the same RNS: full carry, past cost repayment, wellhead gas purchase, no development cost exposure. You don't anchor at those levels if the ITR just revised your resource base down.

⚠️ The uncomfortable reality: the prospective buyer has almost certainly seen an ITR showing materially higher resources than shareholders are currently pricing. That information asymmetry is real, ongoing, and advantages the buyer at the negotiating table every week it persists.

On the surface the “wait them out” play looks smart. Let the licence clock run, let it revert to ONHYM, negotiate direct with the state at zero past-cost obligation.

But it has four serious flaws 👇

▪️ No exclusivity post-reversion — ONHYM runs a competitive process. QatarEnergy, Petronas, Chinese NOCs all enter the room. ADNOC loses the exclusive position they currently hold.

▪️ The data walks — 5 years of proprietary drilling data, MOU-3 formation damage work, NuTech gas saturation validation, the Scorpion ITR. Some transfers to ONHYM on reversion but the interpretive knowledge leaves with Griffiths. Starting from scratch = 18-24 months minimum delay.

▪️ The macro window is closing — at Brent $113 with Hormuz live, the strategic premium for a non-Hormuz supply node is at its highest point ever. If the crisis resolves, that premium shrinks. The optimal time to buy this asset is during the crisis, not after it.

▪️ BUT — the timeline just got a lot tighter ⏱️

Griffiths has stated drilling commences by end of July with a 90-day rig lead time. Work that back:

🔴 End July 2026 — drilling must commence

🟠 Early May 2026 — 90-day lead time expires right now

🟡 Rig contract must effectively be in place or imminent TODAY

🟢 Which means HoT must be concluded within days, not weeks

This is no longer a 6-8 week window. If Griffiths is to hit his own stated drilling timeline, the transaction clock has already expired on the rig contracting side — unless the acquirer is already committed and the rig is already being lined up behind the scenes.

The only way end-July drilling is achievable is if:

▪️ The HoT is already agreed in principle and the acquirer is contracting the rig now under confidentiality

▪️ Or Griffiths is about to announce something imminently — because there is no 90-day window left to spare

Griffiths knows this too — which is why the aggressive public anchoring of HoT terms in the Feb 25th RNS, the “sooner than expected” April interview comment, and the deliberate ITR non-publication all read as countermoves — creating urgency in PRD’s favour. But the urgency is now pointing at this week and next, not this month.

🎯 Bottom line: The 90-day lead time combined with an end-July drill date means the rig contracting decision is being made right now — today — by whoever is drilling that well. If it isn’t PRD making that call, it’s the acquirer. And if the acquirer is already making it, the transaction is functionally agreed even if the RNS hasn’t landed yet.

The clock isn’t just ticking. It may have already struck.